Lohkee wrote:

Chuckles. So did the Monkeys. The Beatles were a commercial band. Did they have some really good songs? Sure. So did the Monkeys.

Greatest of the 20th? Ummmmm, yeah, we'll just put that in the "real pizza" category.

REALLY?!!  You're going to compare The Beatles to The Monkees??!!  That's a bit like comparing a Ferrari to a Miata...sure they both have 4 tires and a gasoline engine, but...

SPRINGHEEL  wrote:
Rebecca Black
Gnesa
Wing

...Gnesa?...really?...I don't know about that one...

Gary Melton wrote:

...Gnesa?...really?...I don't know about that one...

You cannot deny the genius of this woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF2o5RDk … zVwdXKUtrA

SPRINGHEEL  wrote:

You cannot deny the genius of this woman

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CF2o5RDk … zVwdXKUtrA

In centuries to come, historians might think she was one of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

Orca Bay Images wrote:

In centuries to come, historians might think she was one of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.

I'll take her over those Rolling bones or Lead Zipplens any day of the week

Gary Melton wrote:

REALLY?!!  You're going to compare The Beatles to The Monkees??!!  That's a bit like comparing a Ferrari to a Miata...sure they both have 4 tires and a gasoline engine, but...

Sure. The Beatles were a commercial band that evolved with the times. They were (what we called) mods, then they were hippies, then they were freaks. They created music for the market. They did that very well. I like a lot of their music, but would I call it the "best" of the 20th? Ummm, no. Not by a long shot. Their music was designed and targeted at teeny-boppers and never really changed (their music basically just grew up with their audience). Sorry. They just weren't that impressive at all.

Gary Melton wrote:

You don't have to be a great instrumentalist to be a great musician.  The Beatles were certainly not great instrumentalists, but they created and performed a hell of a lot of great music, which in my book - makes them great musicians.

It's like with photography You must be good enough to be successful, but being very good is not a guarantee of success...

MKPhoto wrote:

It's like with photography You must be good enough to be successful, but being very good is not a guarantee of success...

Or, you could say, being a crappy shooter is fine if you know how to play the market, whereas being a great shooter means nothing if you don't. 

MKPhoto wrote:

It's like with photography You must be good enough to be successful, but being very good is not a guarantee of success...

Continuing your photography analogy...there are great manipulators of camera equipment that have no "eye" for composition and the like.  The Beatles had a great "eye" ("ear", I guess actually) for music.

There is really no "explanation" for The Beatles.  They just happened to be musical geniuses for their time (though their music is proving to be pretty timeless so far).  They didn't really "study" to be geniuses, didn't inherit genius "genes", etc.  They just happened to have an incredible talent for creating incredible music.  They don't really know what made them so special, no one really does...they just WERE!

Lohkee wrote:
Or, you could say, being a crappy shooter is fine if you know how to play the market, whereas being a great shooter means nothing if you don't. 

I am not going this far, there is a certain "pre-requisite" level.

MKPhoto wrote:

I am not going this far, there is a certain "pre-requisite" level.

And that would be?

Lohkee wrote:

Sure. The Beatles were a commercial band that evolved with the times. They were (what we called) mods, then they were hippies, then they were freaks. They created music for the market. They did that very well. I like a lot of their music, but would I call it the "best" of the 20th? Ummm, no. Not by a long shot. Their music was designed and targeted at teeny-boppers and never really changed (their music basically just grew up with their audience). Sorry. They just weren't that impressive at all.

Nothing personal...but a handful of people saying their music wasn't all that impressive doesn't really mean that much in the big picture.  Many millions of people believe sincerely that the music of The Beatles was something special.  Not just because a handful of people said they were, but because millions and millions of people have purchased their music...and STILL DO.  There are a lot more indicators that their music was special, than there are indicators that they weren't so special.

In the history of the world, there has never been a musical act that was loved by 100% of the people on earth...but I doubt there has ever been a musical act loved by MORE people than the Beatles.  That's not just my opinion, or the opinion of a handful of people - that's something that can be proven by looking at record sales, popularity polls, etc.

I get it - you don't think they're so special...but you're part of a minority.

Gary Melton wrote:
Nothing personal...but a handful of people saying their music wasn't all that impressive doesn't really mean that much in the big picture.  Many millions of people believe sincerely that the music of The Beatles was something special.  Not just because a handful of people said they were, but because millions and millions of people have purchased their music...and STILL DO.  There are a lot more indicators that their music was special, than there are indicators that they weren't so special.

In the history of the world, there has never been a musical act that was loved by 100% of the people on earth...but I doubt there has ever been a musical act loved by MORE people than the Beatles.  That's not just my opinion, or the opinion of a handful of people - that's something that can be proven by looking at record sales, popularity polls, etc.

I get it - you don't think they're so special...but you're part of a minority.

O.K. So that puts the Beatles in the same category as Elvis, Madonna, and Micheal Jackson with regard to sales (or popularity). Not a very impressive crowd in terms of the best three of the 20th is it?

ETA MJ would be my pick from those three.

Gary Melton wrote:

Continuing your photography analogy...there are great manipulators of camera equipment that have no "eye" for composition and the like.  The Beatles had a great "eye" ("ear", I guess actually) for music.

There is really no "explanation" for The Beatles.  They just happened to be musical geniuses for their time (though their music is proving to be pretty timeless so far).  They didn't really "study" to be geniuses, didn't inherit genius "genes", etc.  They just happened to have an incredible talent for creating incredible music.  They don't really know what made them so special, no one really does...they just WERE!

I thought about your initial formulation of the question. Which three bands..When you look at it, after the Beatles everybody is second wave. You can remove Led Zeppelin, Kraftwerk, Queen, and the Doors...and the music after the Beatles looks still pretty much the same. But Beatles changed the game.

Same way with singers. You can remove Michael Jackson, Elton John, Bruce Springsteen, Tina Turner, Bon Jovi, etc...and nothing changes. But you can't remove Elvis.

Same way with  instrumentalists. You can remove any lead guitar from any band and the world is still the same. But you can't remove Jimi Hendrix.

So I am changing my entry to 2513 edition of Encyclopedia Internetica, to

The Beatles,
Elvis Presley
Jimi Hendrix.

Sounds so cliche...

Lohkee wrote:

O.K. So that puts the Beatles in the same category as Elvis, Madonna, and Micheal Jackson with regard to sales (or popularity). Not a very impressive crowd in terms of the best three of the 20th is it?

I agree with you as far as Elvis and Madonna, but The Beatles wrote 90% of their catalog, just as MJ wrote at least 80% of his adult songs.

Lohkee wrote:
And that would be?

Being a decent photographer. There are no famous and successful photographers with low level of technical skills. Even TR can shoot good stuff

csjacksonphotography wrote:

I agree with you as far as Elvis and Madonna, but The Beatles wrote 90% of their catalog, just as MJ wrote at least 80% of his adult songs.

Well, yeah. And to be honest, I was not a big fan of MJ's work, but he was amazingly innovative and really pushed the envelope. The Beatles? What the hell did they ever do in terms of innovation or exploring new frontiers when you compare the two? ZIP!

csjacksonphotography wrote:
As far as popularity goes?

No act in the history of recorded music was as popular as Michael Jackson.

I remember MJ being interviewed in 1979 by Slyvia Chase, on ABC (I think) and even at the time, the Jacksons/5 were second only to the Beatles in record sales.

This was years before Thriller and Bad and the rest of his career.

Total sales for The Beatles:       600 million copies

  Total sales for Michael Jackson: 400 million copies

...and Michael Jackson recorded albums for more than 3 times as many years as The Beatles.

Gary Melton wrote:

Total sales for The Beatles:       600 million copies

  Total sales for Michael Jackson: 400 million copies

...and Michael Jackson recorded albums for more than 3 times as many years as The Beatles.

Most of those Beatles' sales came after their break up.

Most of MJ's sales are first run sales.

Most of MJ's adult albums were "Greatest Hits" albums unto themselves.

The Beatles do not have a single first run album that sold like Thriller or Bad.

csjacksonphotography wrote:
Most of those Beatles' sales came after their break up.

Most of MJ's sales are first run sales.

Most of MJ's adult albums were "Greatest Hits" albums unto themselves.

The Beatles do not have a single first run album that sold like Thriller or Bad.

Marketing. It is a **good** thing! In my day, we called it "polishing a turd."

csjacksonphotography wrote:
...Most of those Beatles' sales came after their break up...

Exactly - and this is what makes The Beatles so special...that they CONTINUE to sale tons of records DECADES after they are no longer a group.  Not many groups have had the kind of sales The Beatles have had so long after their breakup (which will be 40 years ago next year).

I'm sure Michael Jackson will have plenty of sales over the next 40 years, but I'll be surprised if his sales keep pace with The Beatles (he couldn't keep pace with them when they were broken up and he was actively performing).  'Sorry, but those are the facts.

Lohkee wrote:

Marketing. It is a **good** thing! In my day, we called it "polishing a turd."

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yiJ9fy1qSFI 

Gary Melton wrote:

Exactly - and this is what makes The Beatles so special...that they CONTINUE to sale tons of records DECADES after they are no longer a group.  Not many groups have had the kind of sales The Beatles have had so long after their breakup (which will be 40 years ago next year).

I'm sure Michael Jackson will have plenty of sales over the next 40 years, but I'll be surprised if his sales keep pace with The Beatles (he couldn't keep pace with them when they were broken up and he was actively performing).  'Sorry, but those are the facts.

Chuckles. When all of us "boomers" kick the bucket no one will even remember who the Beatles were. Nostalgia is good for sales.

Lohkee wrote:

Chuckles. When all of us "boomers" kick the bucket no one will even remember who the Beatles were. Nostalgia is good for sales.

I have no doubt The Beatles will continue to sell records and be remembered for many years to come.  I've personally come across many young people - including teenagers and people in their twenties - who LOVE The Beatles!

Lohkee wrote:

O.K. So that puts the Beatles in the same category as Elvis, Madonna, and Micheal Jackson with regard to sales (or popularity). Not a very impressive crowd in terms of the best three of the 20th is it?

ETA MJ would be my pick from those three.

Well, Elvis may have a different opinion. When Nixon was in office, Elvis paid him a visit and ask if he could get the Beatles deported. His reason? Drug use. But the real reason was their popularity overshadowing his declining career. True story.

Gary Melton wrote:

I have no doubt The Beatles will continue to sell records and be remembered for many years to come.  I've personally come across many young people - including teenagers and people in their twenties - who LOVE The Beatles!

If you are correct, it really doesn't say much for the future of the human race, does it? Beatles? Best thee of the 20th?

Lohkee wrote:

If you are correct, it really doesn't say much for the future of the human race, does it? Beatles? Best thee of the 20th?

Best - no, but most influential...

MKPhoto wrote:

Best - no, but most influential...

Really? What serious musician was influenced by the Beatles? Cites, please.

Lohkee wrote:

O.K. So that puts the Beatles in the same category as Elvis, Madonna, and Micheal Jackson with regard to sales (or popularity). Not a very impressive crowd in terms of the best three of the 20th is it?

ETA MJ would be my pick from those three.

Wow...

Lohkee wrote:

Really? What serious musician was influenced by the Beatles? Cites, please.

Did I say a musician was influenced?

Presley ONeil wrote:

Elvis influenced Bruce Springsteen. I would consider him a pretty serious musician...

And Im the joke of the week... Smh...

And which of those was influenced by the Beatles?  SMDH!

MKPhoto wrote:

Did I say a musician was influenced?

Well, we can play word games but if you were "influential" then you must have "influenced" someone. Can you tell me who? That was, after all, my question.

Lohkee wrote:

And which of those was influenced by the Beatles?  SMDH!

I edited.

Presley ONeil wrote:

I edited.

I know.